Widening Of The Buffer Zone

[toastman]

Not sure how to answer that question.

Indeed, you are batting zero there big guy.

No, YOU'RE batting zero. I provided valid links that indisputably backed up my claim and refuted yours. You provided nothing.

You lost the debate.

Really?

You just gave another instance that shows that resolution 181 does not exist.

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, you are batting zero there big guy.

No, YOU'RE batting zero. I provided valid links that indisputably backed up my claim and refuted yours. You provided nothing.

You lost the debate.

Really?

You just gave another instance that shows that resolution 181 does not exist.

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

 

[toastman]

No, YOU'RE batting zero. I provided valid links that indisputably backed up my claim and refuted yours. You provided nothing.

You lost the debate.

Really?

You just gave another instance that shows that resolution 181 does not exist.

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

 

[Hossfly]

Really?

You just gave another instance that shows that resolution 181 does not exist.

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant drivel, as Doc would say.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Really?

You just gave another instance that shows that resolution 181 does not exist.

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

 

[Hossfly]

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Yep, 27,446 irrelevant posts, Tinmore. You win a seegar.

 

[toastman]

No I didn't. This is just yet ANOTHER example of you not being able to accept that you are wrong.
Are you scared that I'm going to rub it in your face if you admit you're wrong ? Because I'm not. Actually, I would respect you if you did.

Either way, the links I provided are as clear as day. Weather you admit it or not, the facts I presented remain facts.

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You have proved that it was mentioned but it is still as dead as it was in 1947.

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.

Resolution 181 was passed in 1947.

It was rejected.

End of story.

 

[eagle1462010]

No, I proved that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis in 1988 to declare independence and that they accepted it.

Both of these points refuted your claim. If it was dead, then how is it that the Palestinians used it as a legal basis ??

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.

Resolution 181 was passed in 1947.

It was rejected.

End of story.

The Palestinians were offered a new country when Israel was created.......................

It was rejected...............

End of story..................

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, so they used it. What good did it do?

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.

Resolution 181 was passed in 1947.

It was rejected.

End of story.

The Palestinians were offered a new country when Israel was created.......................

It was rejected...............

End of story..................

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

 

[eagle1462010]

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.

Resolution 181 was passed in 1947.

It was rejected.

End of story.

The Palestinians were offered a new country when Israel was created.......................

It was rejected...............

End of story..................

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

Which is a LIE..................OTTOMAN EMPIRE ring a bell.

Hell, Syria didn't exist until after WWI..............Iraq, Jordan..............etc...................didn't exist..................and JORDAN is a LARGE PART OF THE MANDATE.

 

[toastman]

Irrelevant.

Indeed, that is what I have been saying.

Ok but we weren't discussing if it did good or not.

Resolution 181 was passed in 1947.

It was rejected.

End of story.

The Palestinians were offered a new country when Israel was created.......................

It was rejected...............

End of story..................

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.

 

[Hossfly]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.[/QUOTE]
Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.

 

[theliq]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.

Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.[/QUOTE]
Well in your weird world of thought,you hope there is No Political Identity in the West......What errant nonsense that is why "The West" want and support Palestine and Palestinians.

Moreover in the recent tbc

 

[Hossfly]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.

Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.

Well in your weird world of thought,you hope there is No Political Identity in the West......What errant nonsense that is why "The West" want and support Palestine and Palestinians.

Moreover in the recent tbc[/QUOTE]
You read it too, Steve.

 

[eagle1462010]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.

Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.

Well in your weird world of thought,you hope there is No Political Identity in the West......What errant nonsense that is why "The West" want and support Palestine and Palestinians.

Moreover in the recent tbc[/QUOTE]
When they are governed by Hamas and the Hez................hardly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.

Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.[/QUOTE]
No thanks.

I will stick to original source documents.

 

[eagle1462010]

toastman, et al,

Well, at least as far as the US, and most nations of the world were concerned; this is true.

The Palestinians did not need a "new" country. The old one was fine.

They never had one. Countries that exist don't need to declare independence again.
1988 was when a Palestinian state came into existence. You cannot refute that.

(COMMENT)

However, there was a different perspective held prior to 1988, particularly by the Arab Palestinian.

Those of us working counterintelligence and anti-terrorism in the Allied Command during the mid-1980's followed closely the international counterterrorism case of the 1985 piracy of the "Achille Lauro" in the Mediterranean Sea [U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - 816 F. Supp. 930 (S.D.N.Y 1993) March 29, 1993]. This is the case in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attempted to argued that the PLO was a sovereign state and thus immune from this suit. However the court held that the PLO did not meet the criteria of a "state" closely enough to justify treating it as a foreign sovereign or state in this litigation.

To my knowledge, the Status of Palestine has never been tested since, and has changed over time (evolutionary development).

Certainly today, indirectly the UN has given sufficient recognition that it would be hard to argue that the State of Palestine does not exist and that it includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (territories considered occupied since 1967).

Most Respectfully,
R

There are many political opinions about the existence of Palestine.

From what I have found:

Legally it does.

Politically (at least in the West) it does not.

Tinmore, if you want to know the history of Palestine and not be so confused, look in Encylopaedia Brittanica. A true, unbiased account. It will cure you of all that drivel you spout.

No thanks.

I will stick to original source documents.[/QUOTE]
aka the Lies you keep posting.............